Prehistoric pollution

[Exnihiloest]

450.000 years ago, our ancestors were already polluting heavy metalseven Neanderthals.
What a pity, the appearance of man; if he had stayed in the trees, the planet would be clean!

[Janic]

except that the human was never arboreal according to Yvette Deloison, quoted, supported by ALL anatomists she consulted:
“At that time, I picked up all my books on anatomy and paleontology since the Cambrian and the more I studied, the more I said to myself: 'There you have to reverse it. The real logic is there.' There was logic in terms of fossils, there was logic in terms of anatomy,
... Back in Paris, I met anatomists from the Faculty of Medicine and all the anatomists with whom I presented my conclusions confirmed that I was right.
. And so, I make this communication to the society of anatomical doctors and there Professor Barone who teaches in Lyon and who is one of the great masters of the Veterinary School said to me: "Madam, it is you who are right, continue! ". All the same, it scared me a little because I had just come into opposition with a whole institution by saying that the Australopithecines were not our ancestors. But when I saw that vets, anatomists and doctors were telling me: “Go for it!”, I said to myself that their word was much more important to me than that of colleagues who have never dissected neither a human nor a monkey…. "
Obviously to put in comparison with the sigantures below!

[Christophe]

if he had stayed in the trees, the planet would be clean!

Really?

Because heavy metals all come from another planet ???


Otherwise the debate is interesting and can be extended to the question: what is pollution?

For me the best definition is: pollution is the imbalance of an (eco) system.

From there, animals can also be considered as polluters. For example: invasive species that take the place of native species is a pollution ...

And to go further: the financiers who destroy the current economic system are also polluters ...

[Janic]

Bacteria are probably the biggest polluters on the planet.

[Remundo]

450.000 years ago, our ancestors were already polluting heavy metalseven Neanderthals.
What a pity, the appearance of man; if he had stayed in the trees, the planet would be clean!

it does not seem very serious to me, this "study" ...

Neanderthal had no way of concentrating and extracting heavy metals, nor even the desire to do so ...

At Gorham's and Vanguard, sediment levels with well-preserved former tailings can be considered as Cu-Zn-Ni contaminated soils according to current criteria.

Zinc is not in "heavy metals", precisely. This notion is very vague.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89l%C ... C3.A9ennes

On the other hand, really toxic heavy metals are lead, mercury and cadmium.

Cu Zn and Ni have potentially beneficial biological roles as trace elements.

The location of the home of prehistoric men may have been able to concentrate minerals and metals in the ashes, but frankly, it did not have to go very far ... and I doubt that the people of Senetertal and Sapiens liked to eat ashes of their fires ...

[Janic]

here is the probable origin of this information on heavy metals.
http://www.pourquoidocteur.fr/Articles/ ... luait-deja

Not enough to upset the world.
This other article is related to the works of Yvette Deloison already cited:
http://www.pourquoidocteur.fr/Articles/ ... de-l-homme

[Remundo]

"All these results suggest a long-term exposure of heavy metals to Homo sapiens, which may have played a role in its tolerance of polluted environments - a neglected factor, "say the authors of the study.

Scientists believe that despite these high levels of heavy metals, soil contamination has not posed a threat to the health of the people of old. The cancers occurred later.

it's funny that ... will have to put it in society!

superb speculation ...

[Christophe]

Cu Zn and Ni have potentially beneficial biological roles as trace elements.

Yes for Cu and Zn but I have a doubt for Nickel?

The location of the home of prehistoric men may have been able to concentrate minerals and metals in the ashes, but frankly, it did not have to go very far ... and I doubt that the people of Senetertal and Sapiens liked to eat ashes of their fires ...

Eat no (although see below) but reuse yes ... they had certainly already understood that ash was a good laundry ... and they surely had other reuse of their ashes.

Can be during cultural ceremonies for example?

Fire has always fascinated men, even more so at the time!

So I wouldn't be surprised if the ashes could have been used again in "shamanic" rites for example ... like: "you drink potion with ashes and mammoth blood" if you want to be a man ...

[Remundo]

Remundertal show to Christophe Sapiens Man of Fire Metabolic Advantage of Nickel
http://www.vulgaris-medical.com/encyclo ... toxication

BUT Remundertal Tell Man Fire Sapiens Not too much to eat ashes. Dangerous for the vigor of Christophe Sapiens. Too bad for the spirit of the mammoth. Better have his simple sapiens spirit

By cons Remundertal Advisor Ash for washing because Man Sapiens and Neandertal not feel good after hunting.

Now, Remundertal not disturb. because of duty with female.

[Christophe]